Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit

This is a discussion on Ignatious Piazza offers to fund CCW denial Cinemark lawsuit within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by barstoolguru
if someone refuses you the right to protect yourself in their place of business that’s fine but in doing so they ...

if someone refuses you the right to protect yourself in their place of business that’s fine but in doing so they have a responsibility to ensure the establishment is safe and secure for public use. the same law that says if I trip on a loose piece of carpet I can sue for damages + pain and suffering is the same law that they are going to file on; the establishment was not properly secured (fire door unlocked) and security was not adequate thus leading to death and injury to patrons

If you trip on a loose piece of carpet then generally it should be your problem that you weren't watching where you step. We are poorly served by adding yet another line of frivolous lawsuits in this country. We all know how a theater operates when we go in, and it's clear what kind of security (or lack thereof) there is there. They offer to sell you a movie ticket, popcorn, etc. As long as they fulfill their end of the explicitly agreed upon transaction (to entertain you, not to be your bodyguard) then you have no moral grounds to turn around and sue them. The one responsible is the lunatic gunman, not the theater. I agree they should have let people carry in their theaters, but trying to force them through a lawsuit is the moral equivalent to holding a gun to their head and forcing them to use their property as you see fit, and is thus incompatible with a free society.

10,000 people go to a movie theater in a night and 3 people refuse to go because they have a gun buster sign up do you really think they are going to care? NO the thing that is going to hurt them is a lawsuit that takes the money 40,000 people paid away from them. Those are numbers they understand

Yes, let's engage in open theft of the assets of the theater. That will really be justice well-served, and certainly no previously neutral onlookers will observe and conclude that maybe those who want to carry guns in public really are just a bunch of bullies without any morals. This is just as rich as the McDonalds lady with her scalding hot coffee lawsuit. Blame the gunman, not the venue he chose for his attack.

Sure, go after them for not having the door locked or alarmed and security was in adequate (load of crap arguement there) sure....but their right to bear arms was not violated. That is the point. Sue for whatever. But they made a choice to go to a theater with a KNOWN risk that they were not going to be armed.....sorry, no law suit there. Like I said, you want to make up other reasons go for it.

IF someone pays to partake in your business YOU as a business owner have a responsibility to make the place safe. what is the risk of going to a movie; fire maybe (fire exits and fire inspections) a bad hot dog (health inspections) ... if we are talking the race track and you get hit by a tire that is acceptable and is part of the show but THEY have a fence to stop it (preventive) but to go to a theater and get gunned down... sorry; no one is banking on that and if that is the case they need to ensure your safety with higher levels of security and they FAILED to do that

10,000 people go to a movie theater in a night and 3 people refuse to go because they have a gun buster sign up do you really think they are going to care? NO the thing that is going to hurt them is a lawsuit that takes the money 40,000 people paid away from them. Those are numbers they understand

So, you want lawsuits and rough tactics to force a private business to act the way you want huh..great idea. What about what is going on with Chik Fil A?

A Chicago alderman vowed to block a Chick-fil-A proposed in his district, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported him, saying, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Cathy: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."

The company does not even discriminate against LGBTG and what ever letter they have added this year. But because of a view point of the company folks in the government want to muscle them out of their cities...

IF someone pays to partake in your business YOU as a business owner have a responsibility to make the place safe. what is the risk of going to a movie; fire maybe (fire exits and fire inspections) a bad hot dog (health inspections) ... if we are talking the race track and you get hit by a tire that is acceptable and is part of the show but THEY have a fence to stop it (preventive) but to go to a theater and get gunned down... sorry; no one is banking on that and if that is the case they need to ensure your safety with higher levels of security and they FAILED to do that

Life is expensive and a risk a lot of the times. With your logic, you would have to protect everyone that came into your home, on your property. It is foolish to believe that you can be 100% protected at all times, in all places....This lawsuit is stupid. It is part of the sue happy society that is part of the ruin in this country...

If you trip on a loose piece of carpet then generally it should be your problem that you weren't watching where you step. We are poorly served by adding yet another line of frivolous lawsuits in this country. We all know how a theater operates when we go in, and it's clear what kind of security (or lack thereof) there is there. They offer to sell you a movie ticket, popcorn, etc. As long as they fulfill their end of the explicitly agreed upon transaction (to entertain you, not to be your bodyguard) then you have no moral grounds to turn around and sue them. The one responsible is the lunatic gunman, not the theater. I agree they should have let people carry in their theaters, but trying to force them through a lawsuit is the moral equivalent to holding a gun to their head and forcing them to use their property as you see fit, and is thus incompatible with a free society.

Funny you say that; I can go to the south end of town and they have security guards walking and checking the outside of building but if I go to the north side of town there is none. Why it is the south side of town gets them when the north side doesn't. Because people in the south side will stop going because they don't feel safe and the business has a responsibility to ensure your safety.... I don't make the rules up I just live in them

Funny you say that; I can go to the south end of town and they have security guards walking and checking the outside of building but if I go to the north side of town there is none. Why it is the south side of town gets them when the north side doesn't. Because people in the south side will stop going because they don't feel safe and the business has a responsibility to ensure your safety.... I don't make the rules up I just live in them

Sounds to me like the problem is solving itself, and people are voting with their dollars in the south side. I suggest you go to the theaters and businesses that operate in a manner you approve of, and allow others to do the same. Everything will work far better that way than if we allow the courts to ram yet more mandates down the throats of anyone trying to engage in commerce. We have enough needless poverty and missing freedoms over that nonsense in this country.

Funny you say that; I can go to the south end of town and they have security guards walking and checking the outside of building but if I go to the north side of town there is none. Why it is the south side of town gets them when the north side doesn't. Because people in the south side will stop going because they don't feel safe and the business has a responsibility to ensure your safety.... I don't make the rules up I just live in them

If a bomb went off would you be suing becasue there were no bomb sniffing dogs? Want metal detectors? Pocket book searches? And besides, what happened to your argument they should be sued becasue they denied somebody their rights..seem you have changed the topic quite a bit. Refresh me on what right they were denied. And please do answer the question about if a bomb went off..should they sue becasue there were not enough precautions?

Life is expensive and a risk a lot of the times. With your logic, you would have to protect everyone that came into your home, on your property. It is foolish to believe that you can be 100% protected at all times, in all places....This lawsuit is stupid. It is part of the sue happy society that is part of the ruin in this country...

I have a homeowner’s policy that covers me in case someone does get hurt. you have insurance on your home, car, boat, plane ,motorcycle in case something happens.
For all of you that think is a BS lawsuit YOUR not the one that has been shot so to you it is

Cinemark charged a fee to see the movie, and did not provide adequate security (emergency exit??). I come on your property and am harmed while on your property due to your willful negligence, and I hope you have a large insurnace umbrella.

Funny you say that; I can go to the south end of town and they have security guards walking and checking the outside of building but if I go to the north side of town there is none. Why it is the south side of town gets them when the north side doesn't. Because people in the south side will stop going because they don't feel safe and the business has a responsibility to ensure your safety.... I don't make the rules up I just live in them

If our police are under no obligation to protect you, what makes you think a theater has to.

Cinemark charged a fee to see the movie, and did not provide adequate security (emergency exit??). I come on your property and am harmed while on your property due to your willful negligence, and I hope you have a large insurnace umbrella.